Akil Kureshi,J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority dated 18.07.2016 removing the petitioner from service as well as the appellate order dated 31.12.2017 by which the petitioner's appeal against the order of disciplinary authority came to be rejected.
(2.) Brief facts are as under: The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Havildar (Medical) in Tripura State Rifles. He was absent from duty without sanctioned leave from 05.11.2012. Despite communications he did not join duty. On account of his continuous and long absence from duty, the disciplinary authority issued a charge-sheet dated 06.07.2014 in which the charge levelled against the petitioner was as under:- "Article-I That the said No.91010206 Hav(Med) Aftab Ali of Adm Coy, 13th Bn TSR(IR-IX) while posted at Demdum post was commanded on 05.11.2012 to visit Kailashahar Hospital to perform his assigned duty, but since then he did not resume his duty and thus absenting himself unauthorisedly w.e.f. 05.11.2012 (FN) to till date. Thus he has committed a gross misconduct, which is an act of prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Rifles U/S 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983."
(3.) The petitioner did not participate in the departmental inquiry citing the reason for his personal illness. He sent a few medical certificates claiming that he was incapacitated because of his physical condition from either reporting for duty or to appear before the Inquiry Officer to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry ex parte and submitted his report dated 14.06.2016. The Inquiry Officer held that the charge was proved. The disciplinary authority thereupon issued a provisional order of punishment dated 20.06.2016. He recorded that the departmental inquiry was conducted giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Despite several notices from the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner neither engaged a defence assistant nor appeared before the Inquiry Officer. He provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed misconduct and the charge against him was proved for which he proposed to impose a punishment of removal from service. He granted 15 (fifteen) days to the petitioner to reply to the said proposal. The petitioner did not reply to this notice. The disciplinary authority, therefore, passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service and treating the intervening period as dies-non. As noted, against such order the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed. Hence, this petition.;